"Jonathan S. Katz" <jk...@postgresql.org> writes:
> I don't know how frequently issues around "max_stack_depth" being too
> small are reported -- I'd be curious to know that -- but I don't have
> any strong arguments against allowing the behavior you describe based on
> our current docs.
I can't recall any recent gripes on our own lists, but the issue was
top-of-mind for me after discovering that NetBSD defaults "ulimit -s"
to 2MB on at least some platforms. That would leave us setting
max_stack_depth to something less than that, probably about 1.5MB.
regards, tom lane
